1. NASA may lead to the microelectronics industry, but why waste the overhead? Why not just spend directling on the microelectronics industry? Again, I couldn't care less if we could go to Mars or not. The race to land on the moon was nothing other than a feel-good propaganda race to beat the Russians and cost us billions.
2. Some fundamental physic research leads to transistors and other beneficial thing. I can imagine quantum phyics (quantum gravity, quantum mechanics, quantum thermodynamics) leading to great things for the US. But what will understanding how black holes operate lead to? I'll grant you it is part of human nature to want to know, and its good for us all; but that must be weighed against more important needs, and take a back seat to them.
3. Nevertheless, the greedy bastards vote every year to raise their own salary. They make more than 90% of US citizens, yet arguably most of them do less and in fact do harm. Refer to USA Patriot Act, DMCA, 1998 Mickey Mouse Copyright Extention Act, and so on and so forth. Where else in the world do you get to decide how much you're going to get paid? Someone else should decide their salary. Namely, it should be voted on.
4. I didn't say to go for the "lowest price" economy items. I said to go for the best overall value; that which will, all things considered, save us the most money. You're example with limosuines is absurd. Sorry, but a limousine won't get you from A to B any faster than a Chevy. There are speed limits.
5. The trappings of office are irrelevant. I don't want our leaders to look like leaders, I want them to be leaders. There's a difference. This psychological nonsense u talk about is just that. If someone can't understand that representing the people of their country as an elected official is important without getting millions of dollars worth of perks, they shouldn't be in office.
6. The problem with the tax system is that it is designed to encourage and discourage different things. This is bullshit and very expensive. It also creates tons and tons of loopholes for the rich to get through to avoid paying taxes. Furthermore, it adds to the complexity of the law; complex laws are always bad. Laws should be as simple and clear as possible. The money and time (and frustration) that one tax (an income tax) would save would be well worth the minor loss of ability to promote certain values. It costs billions of dollars just for the paper necessary tax forms; it costs billions to process them, due to their complexity; it costs billions to perform investigations. It also costs taxpayers money just by filling out the things, as it takes so long, or they have to pay lawyers. You shouldn't need to be a fucking master of calculus or even need a lawyer to do your taxes. You shouldn't even need to be smart. It should just be (Yearly income) * 0.x.
7. Public buildings are there to serve a purpose, not be artful. Since people are inside them most of the time, their appearance is rather irrelevant. Furthermore, intricate insides are also irrelevant, as people become accustomed to whatever they're surrounded by and aren't effected by it. The only purpose of it is to impress visitors. Bullshit, in other words. And how do you defend spending millions on a statue of Dr. Suess?
8. A balanced budget isn't always easy. It means prioritizing. But it is always beneficial, as you won't lose as much money due to interest.
9. Some cap on growth is necessary, or else the government will expand ad infinitum. The government has never shrunken in history. This is a problem.
10. State campaign monies only serve to help those in power get re-elected. Refer to Hillary Clinton using OUR money to run for Senator in NY. If you want more people to have the opportunity to get elected, push to modify the draconian ballot laws, which are designed to prevent any third party from getting on the ballot; this was conspired on by both the democrats and republicans.
11. The usefulness of many programs is controversial; however, some are universally or nearly so agreed to be useless. As for social security, it should be opt in. I can manage my money alot better than the government can; maybe some people can't, but I sure as hell can.
12. I'm not against labor laws and union laws. I even think of them as necessary (I'll return to this when I talk about legalized prostitution, for example). That does not mean that bad workers should be kept on board. Refer to the Rita Wilson case, where that child-molesting bitch was allowed to keep her job because of tenure.
13, 14, 15. Prostitution, gambling, and drugs. These industries aren't inherently evil and rife with abuses and exploitation. They're such right now because they are illegal and controlled by underground forces. If they were legalized, they would be regulated to do away with such abuses. More than a hundred years ago, the manual labor industry was inherently evil, abusive, and exploitative. Did we ban manual labor in assembly-line shops? No, we regulated to do away with abuses. The same is possible in prostitution, gambling, and drugs. I'll focus on prostitution. Yes, right now, there are abuses. People are tricked into prostitution, or forced into it; pimps abuse their prostitutes; prostitutes are raped; stds spread; and so on and so forth. However, were the industry legalized, all this could be regulated away, just as have abuses been regulated away in other industries. During the 30's, the alcohol industry exhibited the same flaws. Any industry which is illegalized will be rife with the problems you mentioned precisely because it is illegal.
The reason they haven't been slam dunked by now is because politicians are in it for themselves.
Yes, I do want a governmental service which is unrewarding. This way, only those who really want to make a difference (and don't want the power) will run for office. Rather than Ross Perots running for office, Lawrence Lessigs amd Karl Auerbachs would be running for office. Btw, people who really want to be in office are inherently bad people to have in office. (S)he who wants to be in power the least -- who absolutely abhors it -- will be best fit to be in power. I believe that was Socrates.
ICANN's like Section 1, always trying to escape the essential Oversight.
These guys are all fucking crooks. Owned by corporate interests. They've shut out the public from participating in electing the board members -- ALL MEMBERS SHOULD BE ELECTED. If businesses want to have their interests represented, their executives can vote. These crooks have taken all accountability to the public out of the equation. Its no different than taxation without representation.
If the states need the revenue NOW that's their problem. Unlike most politicians and government paper-pushers, the average American works hard, and has to fork over a large percentage of his money to the government in taxes.
Quite frankly, the only thing which should be taxed is yearly profits -- income tax. Taxing someone on the goods they buy is double-taxation; you tax them when they make the money, then you tax them when they buy something, then you tax them again when they sell that something. The government has found sneaky ways to tax people a thousand times over on the same money. There should be one tax, an income tax. Make it big enough to account for not having any other taxes, but there should only be one. We'd save trillions of dollars from not having to do the complicated IRS checks, and we'd all be able to do our taxes in a few seconds ($100,000 * 0.3).
It is exactly because this is a hidden tax that its disturbing. The government can legislate this without facing any consequences; its akin to zero transparency. The government gets to do something controversial and unliked by the vast majority of the people, yet faces no criticism. That's more like a dictatorship than a democracy.
"Some fat may exist"? What are you, a government employee or something? Alot of fat exists. Most of the money we give to the government is wasted -- either spent paying people too much for doing too little (refer to paper pushers, and to politicians who keep on voting to raise their own salaries), or spent on ineffective programs which don't work, or spent on other non-sense. One city spent several million dollars building a statue of fucking Dr. Seuss.
I can list several ways in which the states and the US in general could save trillions:
1. Get rid of NASA. Who the fuck cares if we can get a man on the moon or on Mars or whatever? Who cares if a monkey shits in space or doesn't? The billions spent on NASA should be spent researching things that can help human beings, like cures for disease, or not spent at all.
2. Stop government funding of theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is great, but it isn't going to benefit the public if we know every little detail about black holes or not. Again, money better spent on something else.
3. Stop letting Congressmen and Senators vote to raise their own damn paychecks. The salary for being a Congressman or Senator should be enough to make a person "well off" not absurdely rich. Furthermore, their pay should depend on their performance, like everywhere else in the world.
4. Stop letting Congressmen and Senators and other government officials pamper themselves with OUR tax dollars. No first class plane tickets, no 30-passenger limosuines, none of that luxery bullshit. Let these fuckers fly in coach and drive in bargain-value cars. In fact, mandate that public officials always use the cheapest form of transportation for the given need. This is no different than the bullshit with Britain, where the British people work their asses off to keep the Queen and her bastards living in billion-dollar luxery.
5. Also, lets do away with these mansions we give our congressmen and senators, and lets do away with the free services they get in them. They want to live in a mansion, pay for it with their money, like everyone else would have to.
6. Eliminate all taxes in favor of one tax, the income tax. People's income tax should be linearly proportional to the percentage of money they conribute to the GNP. This will save billions of dollars in paperwork, wasted time, and IRS-audits.
7. Stop making public buildings stately. Those fancy pillars on court-houses just make them more expensive. Same thing with any other public building. It should be functional for its particular needs, nothing more.
8. Pass a constitutional Amendment requiring that all branches of government and all divisions from highest to lowest run a balanced budget. This way, we don't get swamped down in interest fees.
9. Mandate that government not grow at a rate faster than the general population grows at. If the population increases by 10% over 10 years, the government should not increase by 100%.
10. Stop letting politicians use our tax dollars to fund their election campaigns. The witch Hillary Clinton did that for her NY campaign.
11. Get rid of useless programs. Most government programs aren't doing what they're intended to do and simply will never work -- get rid of them.
12. Fire useless employees. The government should be a safe heaven for employees who do their job, but not for those who slack off. Fire them.
13. Legalize prostitution, regulate it (reasonably), and tax it. This will produce enormous amounts of money for the government, while not imposing a great burden on society. Aside from the economic reasons, prostitution should be legal because its a (wo)man's body, and it should be his or her choice on whether or not to sell it. Why should it be illegal to sell something which is perfectly legal to give away? Fucking is legal. Selling is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? As an interesting side-note, our cops waste alot of our tax dollars catching and prosecuting prostitutes; that money would be better spent prosecuting real crimes, like rape and murder. Even for those of you idiots who think prostitution should be illegal, you have to agree its better to catch and convict 1 rapist than to catch and convict all the prostitutes in the US.
14. Same with gambling. The government is hypocritical by not legalizing gambling, as the state lottery is gambling. Again, introduce appropriate regulations and tax.
15. Same with drugs. The war on drugs has been a complete flop. Drug use has, if anything, expanded faster than the rate of population growth. The simple fact is, individuals make their own choices. I couldn't care less if someone chooses to screw up their lives. (But "being high" shouldn't be an excuse for crimes). Legalize it, regulate it, and tax it. Again, this reduces the burden on the general population. For #13, #14, and $15 by taxing the respective activities, you'd save money by not having to prosecute them.
I could go on. But off the top of my head, I've identifie 15 ways in which the government wastes money, and ways in which it could alleviate that waste. Sure, alot less people would want to be politicians, as it wouldn't come with all the perks. But that's a good thing. This way, the people who did want to become politicians would want to become that because of the right reasons, not because of power and money (as a side note, eliminate any exemption from prosecution that any government employee or politician may have).
And I guess all the things you buy online just materialize when you order them, they don't need to be produced and stored in warehouses? But you're right, warehouses and factories don't use state resources...
Yes, they do just materialize out of nowhere if the customer is buying something like a software program which can then be sent online. Even if its a normal order (for say a steak), the factories and warehouses that they use to store things won't necessarily be in the same state where there server is, so that state still has no right to tax tehm.
A local shop or store uses the states resources. It relies on the state's police officers to ensure that it isn't vandalized, and to prosecute anyone who steals. It relies on state money which supports and repairs the streets which give access to that shop or store.
Online businesses don't rely on state resources, or if so only very very rarely and in minor regard. Thus, they shouldn't be taxed.
The other problem with online taxation is that its taxation without representation. If a company is based in NY, it is only represented (in terms of state law) in NY. But lets say that the servers for its products which it sells online are in California. Thus, the company would be taxed in California, without representation. The same thing occurs for us citizens.
Those are some good reasons why online taxation shouldn't be allowed. Here's another one -- its called the will of the people.
How many people can you find (anywhere) that want to be taxed online, so they have to pay online taxes in addition to shipping and handling? Has anyone asked the people about this, or even mentioned it in an election? No. My guess, 99.99% of the people in America don't want online taxation. So we shouldn't have it. Its called Democracy.
"Most states are running budget deficits, and they're looking ever more aggressively for ways to stem the erosion of their tax bases."
Here's a suggestion: fire some of those useless paper-pushers. Get rid of obsolete programs and organizations. Stop letting greedy fucking politicians vote to raise their pay every year. The states have a money problem -- that's their problem. They mismanaged the money we gave them with our taxes. Now they want to punish us by adding more taxes (this very cowardly way to do it, add new taxes, instead of raising existing ones). Probably upwards of 80% of the money you give the state in taxes is wasted anyways. Try cutting off some fat first.
In any other facet of life, people are held financially responsible for their money-management. Where else in the US can you keep on fucking up with money and always get more precisely because you fucked up? Where else do you get to run enormous budget deficits without the plug being pulled on you?
I get really sick and tired of hearing about how the states don't have enough money. Taxes are raised at a much faster rate than inflation devalues money, and they always need more money. Apparently, the government is like God. All-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, but just can't handle money.
I agree, the above question should not have been moderated down. It is an important question.
As the author of the original post, my response is that the First Amendment doesn't permit bribery, which is effectively what contributions by corporations and other organizations to politicians are. There is an implicit and universally known condition to accepting money from an organization or company: accept our money, and legislate beneficially to us. Though unstated, it is, imo, no different than saying, "As a MS representative, MS will give you money if you pass laws banning the GPL". Flat-out-bribery, imo.
Also, I don't think the First Amendment means that the voices of the loudest and richest (which in the case of politics is the same thing) should drown out everyone else, which is what happens.
Both soft-money and hard-money contributions to either political party should be flat-out illegal.
With this kind of money flying around, there's no way in hell that the Senate and Congress will represent the people, and be for and held accountable to the people. They're for the corporations and accountable to them, as well as other money-laden organizations.
Money being given to politicians for political objectives is disturbing, no matter who does it. Its obviously disturbing when its MS and the Tobacco companies giving money to politicians, especially when the government's supposed to be trialing MS for being an illegal monopoly.
Its also disturbing when teachers unions donate 15M dollars. Sure, some of that goes to make sure that the teaching of evolution isn't outlawed in schools. But most of it goes towards protecting bad teachers who should be fired. Thanks to fanatical tenure terms enforced by teachers unions, teachers who should be fired aren't. Point in case, Rita Wilson. That child-molesting bitch sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, and violated the privacy of at least twenty teenaged girls entering a school dance. Another great one is the case around Brandy Blackbeard, where some retarded teacher accused her of "casting a hex on him" and she was suspended.
Contributions to politicians from organizations are just thinly veiled bribes. In a democracy, everyone is supposed to be equal, but such contributions make that impossible. Ideas and laws are propogated not based upon how many voting citizens like them or how good they are, but on who has the most money to give to politicians. Point of case, the DMCA, and the 1998 Mickey Mouse Copyright Extention Act.
This is bullshit. I get sick of hearing about how horrible and abhorrent and violent games are.
Who cares? Playing the latest, greatest, most violent game does not make you any more or less likely to go out and commit some violent act. Games do not control people; people control people.
Just because the two nutcases who shot up Columbine happened to be avid Doom players (or whatever), now we all have to hear this bullshit about how "violent games cause people to go out and act violently".
Give it a freaking rest. I've played quite a few games -- Descent 1-3, Quake 1-3, Tomb Raider 1 - 5, Eternal Darkness, etc. Despite that, I haven't been any more inclined to kill people. Gee, go figure.
* changing messy diapers * putting up with lip * hyperactive yelling * fights * std's * drugs * "come here, come here, come here, here, here, here-here-here!" * "No, no, no-no-no-no-no-no! NO! NO!" * "Will you give me that," * "I dunno" * "It wasn't me" * $200,000 dollars for college
Yes, having kids is a real win win situation. *laughs*;-)
Please stop trying to hijack the word free for your own pro-BSD use. The revised BSD license is a Free Software license; so is the GPL license. The difference is that the revised BSD license is essentially an anarchistic license, allowing anything with the modified code; whereas the GPL license requires that modifications be released under the GPL. According to the FS and OSI standards, this is still a free license.
But what you seem to be arguing is that because the GPL license requires modifications be released under the GPL, but the BSD license doesn't require such, that the BSD license is "more free". Perhaps from a narrow individual standpoint, but not from a societal standpoint. In society, my right to swing my fist ends at your face. Does this make me less free? Yes, slightly. However, it protects other's rights and my rights from being infringed upon.
Similarly with the GPL license. The people at FSF consider the rights required by the Free Software definition to be something that are the minimum standard -- something we're all entitled to. Thus, they require in their GPL that any mods be GPL'ed. This is a way of promoting more freedom, promoting the spread of freedom. Yes, it is promoting an agenda; that agenda is the freedom of the entire software community. Yes, by restricting proprietary developers from imposing draconian restrictions on modifications to GPL'ed software -- by placing a restriction on their "freedom" to do so -- we are promoting the cause of freedom.
Under the BSD-license, Free Software can never spread when proprietary interests oppose it, because they can simply incorporate all of the good BSD code into their own program. Under the BSD license, what's yours is theirs and what's theirs is theirs too. In other words, proprietary developers always win; non-free, draconian software beats back Free Software, and the cause of Freedom is not promoted. Consider the case of the BSDs and OSX. Due to the BSD-licenses, Apple was able to gobble up the code without giving anything back. The result? Apple's draconian EULA-licensed software: +1. The Free Software BSD's: 0.
Yes, the GPL is pushing an agenda, and that agenda is freedom; the freedom of the end user. And to ensure the freedom of other end-users, it insists that modifications to the GPL be licensed under the GPL, thus preventing the spread of anti-freedom draconian EULA's.
BSD-licensed can be used by other Free Software (i.e., GPL) developers; but it can also be used by proprietary interests. In other words, BSD-licensed software can be a weapon for proprietary developers (i.e., MS) to wield against and beat back Free Software developers. GPL'ed software, however, can not be used as a weapon by proprietary developers (i.e., MS) against Free Software developers.
It's really very simple. Those of us who believe in the GPL license think that, yes, freedom is important -- the most important thing, in fact. But freedom should not include hte "freedom" to violate other people's freedom (i.e., licensing modifications to GPL'ed software under a EULA). We believe that the rights granted people by Free Software are fundamental rights, thus we use a license which promotes the use of Free Software and its licenses, and discourages the use of proprietary EULA'ed software.
Proof of my point is that MS loves BSD-licensed software, but hates GPL'ed software. Why? Because they can parasite off of BSD-licensed sofftware and use it as a weapon to further their non-free software and to beat back Free Software. They hate the GPL because it doesn't allow them to parasite and use GPL'ed code against its creators.
I never said it wasn't widely considered to be free software; I said that BSD is more free than GPL. On one hand all BSD guarantees is that you can get THIS version of the software for nothing and do whatever you want with it, so you could perhaps craft an argument that it was less free because of its lack of guarantees. On the other hand, GPL requires you to take certain actions if you take other actions, namely releasing the source which you wrote if you want to give other people the benefit of your changes, but charge them for it. BSD does not place this requirement which, it could be argued (and I am,) devalues your work.
It devalues the work of the Free Software community when proprietary developers rip their code and then use it to make a proprietary product, while giving nothing back to the free community. It also gives proprietary developers an unfair advantage over developers of Free Software, as they can use Free Software in their proprietary programs, but Free Software developers can't use proprietary code in their Free Software. The GPL corrects this unfair imbalance.
The GPl does place certain restrictions on you, namely that you cannot deprive anyone of the same freedoms it gives you, if you modify GPL'ed source code and distribute that. On the narrow view that you're looking at, yes, this makes it less free; that's because you're only considering it from *one* individual's perspective. The GPL looks at the entire community, and gives everyone more freedom by preventing any individual from closing up modifications made to GPL'ed software.
The GPL's requirements do not devalue you're work. They simply ask for equal and opposite exchange. If we give you this software with only these restrictions, you can make modifications of it but must'nt place any further restrictions on those modifications. This ensures the freedom of the entire community, by preventing individual's from violating that freedom by licensing GPL-based software under a EULA.
What you want is to be able to rip off the Free Software community, parasite off of it, without giving anything back. That isn't an appeal to freedom. That's an appeal to selfishness, an appeal to ask that you be allowed to take away other people's freedom's using those very same freedom's they granted you through the Free Software license.
The BSD license is akin to anarchy, whereas the GPL license includes provisions to preserve freedom. Certain restrictions are necessary for the freedom of everyone, otherwise the unscrupulous would take advantage of everyone else.
The GPL license is more free because it ensures freedom in the future. It sees beyond its own little sphere and considers the entire playing field.
Let's say that a great program is release, call it Program. Now, if the developer releases Program under the BSD-license, it is possible for a corporation to come along and snatch his source code, make some improvements, additions, and/or modifications, and then release those changes under a EULA. The new program, call it Modified Program, supplants the original Program, and becomes ubiquitous in use (that is, everyone uses it). Now freedom has disappeared. Under the GPL license, that simply can't happen. Proprietary modifications to such programs can never supplant the original, as they have to be under the GPL; thus, freedom is never lost.
Another problem with the BSD-license is that it gives an enormous advantage to proprietary developers over Free-Software developers. Under the BSD-license, proprietary developers can just take that stuff and never give anything back to the community; they can leech off the work of Free Software developers. Thus, Free Software never has a chance to compete on features, because proprietary developers can always just gobble up its code; the result is that Free Software isn't used as much, and freedom is lost.
Nothing in the GPL prevents you from making money. Refer to RedHat and Lindows, for example. The GPL doesn't say you have to put your entire source code on the, nor your binaries free for download; it just says the source must be made available to those who request it by mail at the cost of delivery, with no restrictions other than those in the GPL. There are many ways to make (or save) money using GPL'ed software. Offering your entire program for free online isn't one of them. But offering a service around GPL'ed progrmas is one way; as is selling them but not offering the binaries/source for free download on-line (i.e., Lindows).
And there's nothing "un-American" about the GPL. That's bullshit propaganda by MS. There's nothing un-American about saying "I'll give you this source code free of restriction except you give the same rights to others if you modify/add-to it". This is a very fair and reasonable deal, which gives you plenty of freedom.
You also seem to completely ignore widely accepted standards of free software, all of which the GPL readily meets:
Opinions can be wrong and/or right when they're opinions of fact.
Saying that the GPL is bad for business is a incorrect assertion of fact. In fact, it is not. My GPLing software doesn't hurt any businesses. If businesses want to use GPL'ed software to base their code on, that's their choice, but they have to release the modification under the GPL; they made an informed decision, weighing out the advantages and disadvantages. If companies only have "one line" of GPL'ed code, it should be no problem to come up with an original replacement. In short, its not bad for them, but can only (in some cases) help them. This is not preventing them from protecting their intellectual property, as you assert; if they want to license their IP under a EULA, they can simply find a replacement for the GPL'ed code, or code a replacement themselves.
Yes, MS likes the BSD license. Of course they like a license which allows them to take but not give back. MS is a parasite to OSS and FS communities.
I also disagree with your implied assertion that the GPL'ed license isn't truely free. In the real world, Freedom does not mean "no restrictions". In the real world, without any restrictions at all (anarchy), there is no freedom; I don't see why restrictions automatically make something unfree in the software world. The GPL was designed to gaurantee the end-user freedom, and to ensure that that freedom isn't taken away by modificatioins to free software which are themselves licensed under non-free licenses.
Lets do a real-world analogy to help you understand. First, an analogy to the BSD license. A city has a well in the middle with a chalice from which to obtain water from the well; the only rules are that anyone may use the chalice to obtain water from that well, so long as they put it back. Anyone can add onto the well and make it better; but the person adding on can impose a fee for others to use that enhancement. Hence, a public resource -- originally free -- may over time be transformed into something divided up among private owners.
Now, compare that to the GPL. In this case, anyone can add on to the well also; but they must not put any more restrictions on the usage of their addition than were on the usage of the original well. Hence, a public resource is free and will always remain free.
That's the difference between the BSD and GPL licenses. The GPL license is truely free -- perhaps more so than the BSD license, since it gaurantees freedom in the future for any modifications, so a proprietary modification of a GPL'ed program cannot replace that GPL'ed program and take away the users freedoms.
In short, the BSD philosophy regarding freedom seems to be that "freedom means the freedom to take away other people's freedom (i.e., add a EULA to modifications of BSD-code)". The GPL philosophy regarding freedom seems to be that "freedom means the freedom to do whatever you want, so long as you don't take away other's freedom".
Since there was no context in the statement, your criticism is irrelevant. The quote said that GPL'ed software hurts company's rights to protect their proprietary software, period; it did not mention anything of what you said.
The government GPLing a piece of software doesn't distriminate against anyone. Corporations can still use it, just as we all can; it is not distriminatory. The only restriction is that corporations (nor anyone else) can't modify it, distribute those modifications, and not release hte modifications under the GPL as well. This is not discriminatory towards "corporate America". They have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. We can't do that either.
Then perhaps 20 CD's a year, which amounts to $360. The point is, this would give people alot of incentive to buy alot of CD's a year, because in exchange for doing that, they'd get unlimited downloads of "copyrighted material".
Microsoft, whose Windows operating system competes with Linux, says open-source hurts a company's right to protect its intellectual property.
What hogwash. News sites shouldn't even post such outright lies. Whether or not I GPL a program I write, MS still has the same "rights" t o their proprietary software as they did before. My GPLing a program has absolutely no effect on MS or any other company "protecting their intellectual property". If you write something on top of (addition/modification of) GPL'ed source, then you have to license it under the GPL. This is fair play; communities have rules, even free communities (having some restrictions does not necessarily mean that something isn't free; indeed, we need restrictions to protect freedom, as there is no freedom in an anarchy). The basic rule of the FS community is that if you modify GPL'ed code or add onto GPL'ed code, then you have to give back to the community by licensing that modification under the GPL. Quid-pro-quo, and perfectly fair. It's like saying "I'll help you if you help me". Every business that modifies/adds-to GPL'ed code knows damn well that it's GPL'ed, and what the consequences of that are. They can stop their pathetic whining. If you don't want to license your software under the GPL, don't base it around GPL'ed code; if its only "one line" of GPL'ed code in your program, then it shouldn't be that hard to replace it.
Microsoft is Smith's top source of donations. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, Microsoft employees and its political action committee have given $22,900 to Smith's re-election campaign.
In other words, as we all know, Smith is bought and paid for and owned by MS, as are most politicians owned by big intellectual property interests (i.e., the RIAA, MPAA, BSA, and pharmaceuticals).
D-Texas
What, a democrat in Texas? I thought that was an extinct species.
This's why I think the world would be better off if Jack Valentini (movie-nazi) and Hillary Rosen (music-nazi) were dead. When I think of all the good people that died at 9/11, it's really too bad that that building couldn't have been full of crooked lawyers, politicians (i.e., the Kennedy who murdered that young girl), and lobbyists (i.e., Jack Valentini & Hillary Rosen). If 10,000 people were going to die, I'd rather it be 10,000 people who were assholes and crooks. But of course, its always the most crooked people who live the longest.
Jack Valentini & Hillary Rosen can go fuck themselves. Most teenagers and most college students do share copyrighted files, which is a good thing. This means its possible that the future will be filled with people who aren't information-nazi's.
Fuck the RIAA and the MPAA. Firstly, most people who download music weren't going to buy the CD's anyways, especially people who download alot of music. Who the fuck's going to buy a 100 CDs in a few days anyways? Yet people download hundreds (possibly thousands) of CDs. The MPAA and the RIAA aren't righteous; they're just looking out for their own best interests.
That said, perhaps a good business model for them would be to offer people unlimited downloading provided they buy so many CD's a year (i.e., if you buy, for example, 50 CDs a year, you get unlimited downloading). The point is that they'd offer unlimited downloads to people who buy alot of CDs a year. The other thing they can do is stop fucking us over on the price of CDs. New CD's go for 18 dollars, which is almost as much as a DVD -- that's bullshit. Sometimes, the sound-track to a movie will cost more than that movie itself; absolutely outrageous. The other thing they can do is stop pushing for such absurd lengths and scopes of copyrights; 10 years of copyright protection is more than enough to make 99% of the profit to be made from any copyrighted material.
Hint to RIAA and MPAA: you don't make money by pissing off your customers and calling them crooks.
However, for the most part, it has very poor defaults for the average home-user desktop-user. I'm speaking as a Debian user here.
Distributions should offer a "desktop" option during setup, which will set things up nicely for the average desktop user: that means anti-aliasing, maximum resolution possible, 16-bit color, a reasonable font-set, and a good default GUI-configuration (this does not mean a aqua-esque theme; this means that, for example, if the WM is WindowMaker, icons for the internet, e-mail, spreadsheets, word processors, etc should be on the dock).
All of the right stuff is there to make GNU/Linux. All that developers need to do is set up good defaults. This is simply a configuration issue; it is not something which is going to prevent you from devoting enough time to core technical issues.
The simple answer is the colder the better. Make it as low as you can tolerate.
One thing to do to make it very cold but comfortable for humans is to put the computer machinery (CPU's, GPU's, hard-drives, etc) in one room, and terminals in another, where the users sit.
Google is one organization. It is located in the US, and all its finances are in the US. So the question is firstly how do European countries have any sovereignty over it? and secondly what possible means could they have to force Google to obey their laws? Why should Google bother obeying these backwards laws, when it can ignore them at no cost.
No matter how offensive, mean, or cruel-spirited you may find people's ideas, they have the right to express them. Its a fundamental human right to freedom of speach. It exists whether or not government's recognize it, just as does the right to life.
If pro-nazi speaches offend you, then don't listen to them. Go somewhere else. Don't read Mein Kampf. No one's forcing you to listen: the right to speak does mean the right to necessarily be heard (though it does mean the right to have the potential to be heard).
That Germany as a nation chooses to ignore and violate the right to freedom of speach proves they haven't learned much from Hitler's era, when human rights were completely ignored. Had they, they would respect these rights. I'm speaking as someone of German descent, in this case. Its even worse in a democracy when human rights violations occur than when they occur in a dictatorship; when they occur in a democracy, that means that a majority of the people must have voted for someone who supports human rights violations.
To those who say that Google's doing the right thing by obeying the laws of Germany and France, I say that's non-sense. Unjust laws should not be obeyed. Just as in Germany during WWII, the right thing to do was ignore orders to kill Jewish people, so is the right thing to do in this case to disobey these laws which violate freedom of speach. This is not such a severe case, but the right thing to do is to violate laws which are wrong.
That said, I wonder why Google bother's to obey these laws. Google is based in the US, and to my knowledge all of their people are in the US, as is all of their finances. If Google chose not to obey these laws, how could the German & French government's possibly coerce or penalize them, since Google is beyond their sovereignty?
If you don't think that politics affects you or what you do, then yes you are stupid. You can talk about whatever you want. But don't criticize well-meaning people for bringing up issues that do affect you.
Slashdot Mirror
1. NASA may lead to the microelectronics industry, but why waste the overhead? Why not just spend directling on the microelectronics industry? Again, I couldn't care less if we could go to Mars or not. The race to land on the moon was nothing other than a feel-good propaganda race to beat the Russians and cost us billions.
2. Some fundamental physic research leads to transistors and other beneficial thing. I can imagine quantum phyics (quantum gravity, quantum mechanics, quantum thermodynamics) leading to great things for the US. But what will understanding how black holes operate lead to? I'll grant you it is part of human nature to want to know, and its good for us all; but that must be weighed against more important needs, and take a back seat to them.
3. Nevertheless, the greedy bastards vote every year to raise their own salary. They make more than 90% of US citizens, yet arguably most of them do less and in fact do harm. Refer to USA Patriot Act, DMCA, 1998 Mickey Mouse Copyright Extention Act, and so on and so forth. Where else in the world do you get to decide how much you're going to get paid? Someone else should decide their salary. Namely, it should be voted on.
4. I didn't say to go for the "lowest price" economy items. I said to go for the best overall value; that which will, all things considered, save us the most money. You're example with limosuines is absurd. Sorry, but a limousine won't get you from A to B any faster than a Chevy. There are speed limits.
5. The trappings of office are irrelevant. I don't want our leaders to look like leaders, I want them to be leaders. There's a difference. This psychological nonsense u talk about is just that. If someone can't understand that representing the people of their country as an elected official is important without getting millions of dollars worth of perks, they shouldn't be in office.
6. The problem with the tax system is that it is designed to encourage and discourage different things. This is bullshit and very expensive. It also creates tons and tons of loopholes for the rich to get through to avoid paying taxes. Furthermore, it adds to the complexity of the law; complex laws are always bad. Laws should be as simple and clear as possible. The money and time (and frustration) that one tax (an income tax) would save would be well worth the minor loss of ability to promote certain values. It costs billions of dollars just for the paper necessary tax forms; it costs billions to process them, due to their complexity; it costs billions to perform investigations. It also costs taxpayers money just by filling out the things, as it takes so long, or they have to pay lawyers. You shouldn't need to be a fucking master of calculus or even need a lawyer to do your taxes. You shouldn't even need to be smart. It should just be (Yearly income) * 0.x.
7. Public buildings are there to serve a purpose, not be artful. Since people are inside them most of the time, their appearance is rather irrelevant. Furthermore, intricate insides are also irrelevant, as people become accustomed to whatever they're surrounded by and aren't effected by it. The only purpose of it is to impress visitors. Bullshit, in other words. And how do you defend spending millions on a statue of Dr. Suess?
8. A balanced budget isn't always easy. It means prioritizing. But it is always beneficial, as you won't lose as much money due to interest.
9. Some cap on growth is necessary, or else the government will expand ad infinitum. The government has never shrunken in history. This is a problem.
10. State campaign monies only serve to help those in power get re-elected. Refer to Hillary Clinton using OUR money to run for Senator in NY. If you want more people to have the opportunity to get elected, push to modify the draconian ballot laws, which are designed to prevent any third party from getting on the ballot; this was conspired on by both the democrats and republicans.
11. The usefulness of many programs is controversial; however, some are universally or nearly so agreed to be useless. As for social security, it should be opt in. I can manage my money alot better than the government can; maybe some people can't, but I sure as hell can.
12. I'm not against labor laws and union laws. I even think of them as necessary (I'll return to this when I talk about legalized prostitution, for example). That does not mean that bad workers should be kept on board. Refer to the Rita Wilson case, where that child-molesting bitch was allowed to keep her job because of tenure.
13, 14, 15. Prostitution, gambling, and drugs. These industries aren't inherently evil and rife with abuses and exploitation. They're such right now because they are illegal and controlled by underground forces. If they were legalized, they would be regulated to do away with such abuses. More than a hundred years ago, the manual labor industry was inherently evil, abusive, and exploitative. Did we ban manual labor in assembly-line shops? No, we regulated to do away with abuses. The same is possible in prostitution, gambling, and drugs. I'll focus on prostitution. Yes, right now, there are abuses. People are tricked into prostitution, or forced into it; pimps abuse their prostitutes; prostitutes are raped; stds spread; and so on and so forth. However, were the industry legalized, all this could be regulated away, just as have abuses been regulated away in other industries. During the 30's, the alcohol industry exhibited the same flaws. Any industry which is illegalized will be rife with the problems you mentioned precisely because it is illegal.
The reason they haven't been slam dunked by now is because politicians are in it for themselves.
Yes, I do want a governmental service which is unrewarding. This way, only those who really want to make a difference (and don't want the power) will run for office. Rather than Ross Perots running for office, Lawrence Lessigs amd Karl Auerbachs would be running for office. Btw, people who really want to be in office are inherently bad people to have in office. (S)he who wants to be in power the least -- who absolutely abhors it -- will be best fit to be in power. I believe that was Socrates.
ICANN's like Section 1, always trying to escape the essential Oversight.
These guys are all fucking crooks. Owned by corporate interests. They've shut out the public from participating in electing the board members -- ALL MEMBERS SHOULD BE ELECTED. If businesses want to have their interests represented, their executives can vote. These crooks have taken all accountability to the public out of the equation. Its no different than taxation without representation.
If the states need the revenue NOW that's their problem. Unlike most politicians and government paper-pushers, the average American works hard, and has to fork over a large percentage of his money to the government in taxes.
Quite frankly, the only thing which should be taxed is yearly profits -- income tax. Taxing someone on the goods they buy is double-taxation; you tax them when they make the money, then you tax them when they buy something, then you tax them again when they sell that something. The government has found sneaky ways to tax people a thousand times over on the same money. There should be one tax, an income tax. Make it big enough to account for not having any other taxes, but there should only be one. We'd save trillions of dollars from not having to do the complicated IRS checks, and we'd all be able to do our taxes in a few seconds ($100,000 * 0.3).
It is exactly because this is a hidden tax that its disturbing. The government can legislate this without facing any consequences; its akin to zero transparency. The government gets to do something controversial and unliked by the vast majority of the people, yet faces no criticism. That's more like a dictatorship than a democracy.
"Some fat may exist"? What are you, a government employee or something? Alot of fat exists. Most of the money we give to the government is wasted -- either spent paying people too much for doing too little (refer to paper pushers, and to politicians who keep on voting to raise their own salaries), or spent on ineffective programs which don't work, or spent on other non-sense. One city spent several million dollars building a statue of fucking Dr. Seuss.
I can list several ways in which the states and the US in general could save trillions:
1. Get rid of NASA. Who the fuck cares if we can get a man on the moon or on Mars or whatever? Who cares if a monkey shits in space or doesn't? The billions spent on NASA should be spent researching things that can help human beings, like cures for disease, or not spent at all.
2. Stop government funding of theoretical physics. Theoretical physics is great, but it isn't going to benefit the public if we know every little detail about black holes or not. Again, money better spent on something else.
3. Stop letting Congressmen and Senators vote to raise their own damn paychecks. The salary for being a Congressman or Senator should be enough to make a person "well off" not absurdely rich. Furthermore, their pay should depend on their performance, like everywhere else in the world.
4. Stop letting Congressmen and Senators and other government officials pamper themselves with OUR tax dollars. No first class plane tickets, no 30-passenger limosuines, none of that luxery bullshit. Let these fuckers fly in coach and drive in bargain-value cars. In fact, mandate that public officials always use the cheapest form of transportation for the given need. This is no different than the bullshit with Britain, where the British people work their asses off to keep the Queen and her bastards living in billion-dollar luxery.
5. Also, lets do away with these mansions we give our congressmen and senators, and lets do away with the free services they get in them. They want to live in a mansion, pay for it with their money, like everyone else would have to.
6. Eliminate all taxes in favor of one tax, the income tax. People's income tax should be linearly proportional to the percentage of money they conribute to the GNP. This will save billions of dollars in paperwork, wasted time, and IRS-audits.
7. Stop making public buildings stately. Those fancy pillars on court-houses just make them more expensive. Same thing with any other public building. It should be functional for its particular needs, nothing more.
8. Pass a constitutional Amendment requiring that all branches of government and all divisions from highest to lowest run a balanced budget. This way, we don't get swamped down in interest fees.
9. Mandate that government not grow at a rate faster than the general population grows at. If the population increases by 10% over 10 years, the government should not increase by 100%.
10. Stop letting politicians use our tax dollars to fund their election campaigns. The witch Hillary Clinton did that for her NY campaign.
11. Get rid of useless programs. Most government programs aren't doing what they're intended to do and simply will never work -- get rid of them.
12. Fire useless employees. The government should be a safe heaven for employees who do their job, but not for those who slack off. Fire them.
13. Legalize prostitution, regulate it (reasonably), and tax it. This will produce enormous amounts of money for the government, while not imposing a great burden on society. Aside from the economic reasons, prostitution should be legal because its a (wo)man's body, and it should be his or her choice on whether or not to sell it. Why should it be illegal to sell something which is perfectly legal to give away? Fucking is legal. Selling is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? As an interesting side-note, our cops waste alot of our tax dollars catching and prosecuting prostitutes; that money would be better spent prosecuting real crimes, like rape and murder. Even for those of you idiots who think prostitution should be illegal, you have to agree its better to catch and convict 1 rapist than to catch and convict all the prostitutes in the US.
14. Same with gambling. The government is hypocritical by not legalizing gambling, as the state lottery is gambling. Again, introduce appropriate regulations and tax.
15. Same with drugs. The war on drugs has been a complete flop. Drug use has, if anything, expanded faster than the rate of population growth. The simple fact is, individuals make their own choices. I couldn't care less if someone chooses to screw up their lives. (But "being high" shouldn't be an excuse for crimes). Legalize it, regulate it, and tax it. Again, this reduces the burden on the general population. For #13, #14, and $15 by taxing the respective activities, you'd save money by not having to prosecute them.
I could go on. But off the top of my head, I've identifie 15 ways in which the government wastes money, and ways in which it could alleviate that waste. Sure, alot less people would want to be politicians, as it wouldn't come with all the perks. But that's a good thing. This way, the people who did want to become politicians would want to become that because of the right reasons, not because of power and money (as a side note, eliminate any exemption from prosecution that any government employee or politician may have).
And I guess all the things you buy online just materialize when you order them, they don't need to be produced and stored in warehouses? But you're right, warehouses and factories don't use state resources...
Yes, they do just materialize out of nowhere if the customer is buying something like a software program which can then be sent online. Even if its a normal order (for say a steak), the factories and warehouses that they use to store things won't necessarily be in the same state where there server is, so that state still has no right to tax tehm.
Because they don't use the states resources.
A local shop or store uses the states resources. It relies on the state's police officers to ensure that it isn't vandalized, and to prosecute anyone who steals. It relies on state money which supports and repairs the streets which give access to that shop or store.
Online businesses don't rely on state resources, or if so only very very rarely and in minor regard. Thus, they shouldn't be taxed.
The other problem with online taxation is that its taxation without representation. If a company is based in NY, it is only represented (in terms of state law) in NY. But lets say that the servers for its products which it sells online are in California. Thus, the company would be taxed in California, without representation. The same thing occurs for us citizens.
Those are some good reasons why online taxation shouldn't be allowed. Here's another one -- its called the will of the people.
How many people can you find (anywhere) that want to be taxed online, so they have to pay online taxes in addition to shipping and handling? Has anyone asked the people about this, or even mentioned it in an election? No. My guess, 99.99% of the people in America don't want online taxation. So we shouldn't have it. Its called Democracy.
"Most states are running budget deficits, and they're looking ever more aggressively for ways to stem the erosion of their tax bases."
Here's a suggestion: fire some of those useless paper-pushers. Get rid of obsolete programs and organizations. Stop letting greedy fucking politicians vote to raise their pay every year. The states have a money problem -- that's their problem. They mismanaged the money we gave them with our taxes. Now they want to punish us by adding more taxes (this very cowardly way to do it, add new taxes, instead of raising existing ones). Probably upwards of 80% of the money you give the state in taxes is wasted anyways. Try cutting off some fat first.
In any other facet of life, people are held financially responsible for their money-management. Where else in the US can you keep on fucking up with money and always get more precisely because you fucked up? Where else do you get to run enormous budget deficits without the plug being pulled on you?
I get really sick and tired of hearing about how the states don't have enough money. Taxes are raised at a much faster rate than inflation devalues money, and they always need more money. Apparently, the government is like God. All-powerful, all-knowing, all-wise, but just can't handle money.
I agree, the above question should not have been moderated down. It is an important question.
As the author of the original post, my response is that the First Amendment doesn't permit bribery, which is effectively what contributions by corporations and other organizations to politicians are. There is an implicit and universally known condition to accepting money from an organization or company: accept our money, and legislate beneficially to us. Though unstated, it is, imo, no different than saying, "As a MS representative, MS will give you money if you pass laws banning the GPL". Flat-out-bribery, imo.
Also, I don't think the First Amendment means that the voices of the loudest and richest (which in the case of politics is the same thing) should drown out everyone else, which is what happens.
Both soft-money and hard-money contributions to either political party should be flat-out illegal.
With this kind of money flying around, there's no way in hell that the Senate and Congress will represent the people, and be for and held accountable to the people. They're for the corporations and accountable to them, as well as other money-laden organizations.
Money being given to politicians for political objectives is disturbing, no matter who does it. Its obviously disturbing when its MS and the Tobacco companies giving money to politicians, especially when the government's supposed to be trialing MS for being an illegal monopoly.
Its also disturbing when teachers unions donate 15M dollars. Sure, some of that goes to make sure that the teaching of evolution isn't outlawed in schools. But most of it goes towards protecting bad teachers who should be fired. Thanks to fanatical tenure terms enforced by teachers unions, teachers who should be fired aren't. Point in case, Rita Wilson. That child-molesting bitch sexually harassed, sexually assaulted, and violated the privacy of at least twenty teenaged girls entering a school dance. Another great one is the case around Brandy Blackbeard, where some retarded teacher accused her of "casting a hex on him" and she was suspended.
Contributions to politicians from organizations are just thinly veiled bribes. In a democracy, everyone is supposed to be equal, but such contributions make that impossible. Ideas and laws are propogated not based upon how many voting citizens like them or how good they are, but on who has the most money to give to politicians. Point of case, the DMCA, and the 1998 Mickey Mouse Copyright Extention Act.
1 - 5, actually, and waiting for TR 6 (though I'll probably [boo!] have to upgrade my GeForce2 to a GeForce 5 or Radeon 9600).
Along with the Descent series, the Tomb Raider series is the best series of games I've ever played.
This is bullshit. I get sick of hearing about how horrible and abhorrent and violent games are.
Who cares? Playing the latest, greatest, most violent game does not make you any more or less likely to go out and commit some violent act. Games do not control people; people control people.
Just because the two nutcases who shot up Columbine happened to be avid Doom players (or whatever), now we all have to hear this bullshit about how "violent games cause people to go out and act violently".
Give it a freaking rest. I've played quite a few games -- Descent 1-3, Quake 1-3, Tomb Raider 1 - 5, Eternal Darkness, etc. Despite that, I haven't been any more inclined to kill people. Gee, go figure.
Having children is a win?
;-)
Let's see:
* changing messy diapers
* putting up with lip
* hyperactive yelling
* fights
* std's
* drugs
* "come here, come here, come here, here, here, here-here-here!"
* "No, no, no-no-no-no-no-no! NO! NO!"
* "Will you give me that,"
* "I dunno"
* "It wasn't me"
* $200,000 dollars for college
Yes, having kids is a real win win situation. *laughs*
Please stop trying to hijack the word free for your own pro-BSD use. The revised BSD license is a Free Software license; so is the GPL license. The difference is that the revised BSD license is essentially an anarchistic license, allowing anything with the modified code; whereas the GPL license requires that modifications be released under the GPL. According to the FS and OSI standards, this is still a free license.
But what you seem to be arguing is that because the GPL license requires modifications be released under the GPL, but the BSD license doesn't require such, that the BSD license is "more free". Perhaps from a narrow individual standpoint, but not from a societal standpoint. In society, my right to swing my fist ends at your face. Does this make me less free? Yes, slightly. However, it protects other's rights and my rights from being infringed upon.
Similarly with the GPL license. The people at FSF consider the rights required by the Free Software definition to be something that are the minimum standard -- something we're all entitled to. Thus, they require in their GPL that any mods be GPL'ed. This is a way of promoting more freedom, promoting the spread of freedom. Yes, it is promoting an agenda; that agenda is the freedom of the entire software community. Yes, by restricting proprietary developers from imposing draconian restrictions on modifications to GPL'ed software -- by placing a restriction on their "freedom" to do so -- we are promoting the cause of freedom.
Under the BSD-license, Free Software can never spread when proprietary interests oppose it, because they can simply incorporate all of the good BSD code into their own program. Under the BSD license, what's yours is theirs and what's theirs is theirs too. In other words, proprietary developers always win; non-free, draconian software beats back Free Software, and the cause of Freedom is not promoted. Consider the case of the BSDs and OSX. Due to the BSD-licenses, Apple was able to gobble up the code without giving anything back. The result? Apple's draconian EULA-licensed software: +1. The Free Software BSD's: 0.
Yes, the GPL is pushing an agenda, and that agenda is freedom; the freedom of the end user. And to ensure the freedom of other end-users, it insists that modifications to the GPL be licensed under the GPL, thus preventing the spread of anti-freedom draconian EULA's.
BSD-licensed can be used by other Free Software (i.e., GPL) developers; but it can also be used by proprietary interests. In other words, BSD-licensed software can be a weapon for proprietary developers (i.e., MS) to wield against and beat back Free Software developers. GPL'ed software, however, can not be used as a weapon by proprietary developers (i.e., MS) against Free Software developers.
It's really very simple. Those of us who believe in the GPL license think that, yes, freedom is important -- the most important thing, in fact. But freedom should not include hte "freedom" to violate other people's freedom (i.e., licensing modifications to GPL'ed software under a EULA). We believe that the rights granted people by Free Software are fundamental rights, thus we use a license which promotes the use of Free Software and its licenses, and discourages the use of proprietary EULA'ed software.
Proof of my point is that MS loves BSD-licensed software, but hates GPL'ed software. Why? Because they can parasite off of BSD-licensed sofftware and use it as a weapon to further their non-free software and to beat back Free Software. They hate the GPL because it doesn't allow them to parasite and use GPL'ed code against its creators.
I never said it wasn't widely considered to be free software; I said that BSD is more free than GPL. On one hand all BSD guarantees is that you can get THIS version of the software for nothing and do whatever you want with it, so you could perhaps craft an argument that it was less free because of its lack of guarantees. On the other hand, GPL requires you to take certain actions if you take other actions, namely releasing the source which you wrote if you want to give other people the benefit of your changes, but charge them for it. BSD does not place this requirement which, it could be argued (and I am,) devalues your work.
It devalues the work of the Free Software community when proprietary developers rip their code and then use it to make a proprietary product, while giving nothing back to the free community. It also gives proprietary developers an unfair advantage over developers of Free Software, as they can use Free Software in their proprietary programs, but Free Software developers can't use proprietary code in their Free Software. The GPL corrects this unfair imbalance.
The GPl does place certain restrictions on you, namely that you cannot deprive anyone of the same freedoms it gives you, if you modify GPL'ed source code and distribute that. On the narrow view that you're looking at, yes, this makes it less free; that's because you're only considering it from *one* individual's perspective. The GPL looks at the entire community, and gives everyone more freedom by preventing any individual from closing up modifications made to GPL'ed software.
The GPL's requirements do not devalue you're work. They simply ask for equal and opposite exchange. If we give you this software with only these restrictions, you can make modifications of it but must'nt place any further restrictions on those modifications. This ensures the freedom of the entire community, by preventing individual's from violating that freedom by licensing GPL-based software under a EULA.
What you want is to be able to rip off the Free Software community, parasite off of it, without giving anything back. That isn't an appeal to freedom. That's an appeal to selfishness, an appeal to ask that you be allowed to take away other people's freedom's using those very same freedom's they granted you through the Free Software license.
The BSD license is akin to anarchy, whereas the GPL license includes provisions to preserve freedom. Certain restrictions are necessary for the freedom of everyone, otherwise the unscrupulous would take advantage of everyone else.
s
The GPL license is more free because it ensures freedom in the future. It sees beyond its own little sphere and considers the entire playing field.
Let's say that a great program is release, call it Program. Now, if the developer releases Program under the BSD-license, it is possible for a corporation to come along and snatch his source code, make some improvements, additions, and/or modifications, and then release those changes under a EULA. The new program, call it Modified Program, supplants the original Program, and becomes ubiquitous in use (that is, everyone uses it). Now freedom has disappeared. Under the GPL license, that simply can't happen. Proprietary modifications to such programs can never supplant the original, as they have to be under the GPL; thus, freedom is never lost.
Another problem with the BSD-license is that it gives an enormous advantage to proprietary developers over Free-Software developers. Under the BSD-license, proprietary developers can just take that stuff and never give anything back to the community; they can leech off the work of Free Software developers. Thus, Free Software never has a chance to compete on features, because proprietary developers can always just gobble up its code; the result is that Free Software isn't used as much, and freedom is lost.
Nothing in the GPL prevents you from making money. Refer to RedHat and Lindows, for example. The GPL doesn't say you have to put your entire source code on the, nor your binaries free for download; it just says the source must be made available to those who request it by mail at the cost of delivery, with no restrictions other than those in the GPL. There are many ways to make (or save) money using GPL'ed software. Offering your entire program for free online isn't one of them. But offering a service around GPL'ed progrmas is one way; as is selling them but not offering the binaries/source for free download on-line (i.e., Lindows).
And there's nothing "un-American" about the GPL. That's bullshit propaganda by MS. There's nothing un-American about saying "I'll give you this source code free of restriction except you give the same rights to others if you modify/add-to it". This is a very fair and reasonable deal, which gives you plenty of freedom.
You also seem to completely ignore widely accepted standards of free software, all of which the GPL readily meets:
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
http://www.debian.org/intro/free
http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guideline
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
The GPL meets all of these definitions, thus is Free Software.
Opinions can be wrong and/or right when they're opinions of fact.
Saying that the GPL is bad for business is a incorrect assertion of fact. In fact, it is not. My GPLing software doesn't hurt any businesses. If businesses want to use GPL'ed software to base their code on, that's their choice, but they have to release the modification under the GPL; they made an informed decision, weighing out the advantages and disadvantages. If companies only have "one line" of GPL'ed code, it should be no problem to come up with an original replacement. In short, its not bad for them, but can only (in some cases) help them. This is not preventing them from protecting their intellectual property, as you assert; if they want to license their IP under a EULA, they can simply find a replacement for the GPL'ed code, or code a replacement themselves.
Yes, MS likes the BSD license. Of course they like a license which allows them to take but not give back. MS is a parasite to OSS and FS communities.
I also disagree with your implied assertion that the GPL'ed license isn't truely free. In the real world, Freedom does not mean "no restrictions". In the real world, without any restrictions at all (anarchy), there is no freedom; I don't see why restrictions automatically make something unfree in the software world. The GPL was designed to gaurantee the end-user freedom, and to ensure that that freedom isn't taken away by modificatioins to free software which are themselves licensed under non-free licenses.
Lets do a real-world analogy to help you understand. First, an analogy to the BSD license. A city has a well in the middle with a chalice from which to obtain water from the well; the only rules are that anyone may use the chalice to obtain water from that well, so long as they put it back. Anyone can add onto the well and make it better; but the person adding on can impose a fee for others to use that enhancement. Hence, a public resource -- originally free -- may over time be transformed into something divided up among private owners.
Now, compare that to the GPL. In this case, anyone can add on to the well also; but they must not put any more restrictions on the usage of their addition than were on the usage of the original well. Hence, a public resource is free and will always remain free.
That's the difference between the BSD and GPL licenses. The GPL license is truely free -- perhaps more so than the BSD license, since it gaurantees freedom in the future for any modifications, so a proprietary modification of a GPL'ed program cannot replace that GPL'ed program and take away the users freedoms.
In short, the BSD philosophy regarding freedom seems to be that "freedom means the freedom to take away other people's freedom (i.e., add a EULA to modifications of BSD-code)". The GPL philosophy regarding freedom seems to be that "freedom means the freedom to do whatever you want, so long as you don't take away other's freedom".
I don't know about all of you, but I'd gladly settle to live twice as long for the "sacrafice" of not being able to have children.
Since there was no context in the statement, your criticism is irrelevant. The quote said that GPL'ed software hurts company's rights to protect their proprietary software, period; it did not mention anything of what you said.
The government GPLing a piece of software doesn't distriminate against anyone. Corporations can still use it, just as we all can; it is not distriminatory. The only restriction is that corporations (nor anyone else) can't modify it, distribute those modifications, and not release hte modifications under the GPL as well. This is not discriminatory towards "corporate America". They have to play by the same rules as the rest of us. We can't do that either.
Then perhaps 20 CD's a year, which amounts to $360. The point is, this would give people alot of incentive to buy alot of CD's a year, because in exchange for doing that, they'd get unlimited downloads of "copyrighted material".
This's why I think the world would be better off if Jack Valentini (movie-nazi) and Hillary Rosen (music-nazi) were dead. When I think of all the good people that died at 9/11, it's really too bad that that building couldn't have been full of crooked lawyers, politicians (i.e., the Kennedy who murdered that young girl), and lobbyists (i.e., Jack Valentini & Hillary Rosen). If 10,000 people were going to die, I'd rather it be 10,000 people who were assholes and crooks. But of course, its always the most crooked people who live the longest.
Jack Valentini & Hillary Rosen can go fuck themselves. Most teenagers and most college students do share copyrighted files, which is a good thing. This means its possible that the future will be filled with people who aren't information-nazi's.
Fuck the RIAA and the MPAA. Firstly, most people who download music weren't going to buy the CD's anyways, especially people who download alot of music. Who the fuck's going to buy a 100 CDs in a few days anyways? Yet people download hundreds (possibly thousands) of CDs. The MPAA and the RIAA aren't righteous; they're just looking out for their own best interests.
That said, perhaps a good business model for them would be to offer people unlimited downloading provided they buy so many CD's a year (i.e., if you buy, for example, 50 CDs a year, you get unlimited downloading). The point is that they'd offer unlimited downloads to people who buy alot of CDs a year. The other thing they can do is stop fucking us over on the price of CDs. New CD's go for 18 dollars, which is almost as much as a DVD -- that's bullshit. Sometimes, the sound-track to a movie will cost more than that movie itself; absolutely outrageous. The other thing they can do is stop pushing for such absurd lengths and scopes of copyrights; 10 years of copyright protection is more than enough to make 99% of the profit to be made from any copyrighted material.
Hint to RIAA and MPAA: you don't make money by pissing off your customers and calling them crooks.
GNU/Linux does have good defaults, for a server.
However, for the most part, it has very poor defaults for the average home-user desktop-user. I'm speaking as a Debian user here.
Distributions should offer a "desktop" option during setup, which will set things up nicely for the average desktop user: that means anti-aliasing, maximum resolution possible, 16-bit color, a reasonable font-set, and a good default GUI-configuration (this does not mean a aqua-esque theme; this means that, for example, if the WM is WindowMaker, icons for the internet, e-mail, spreadsheets, word processors, etc should be on the dock).
All of the right stuff is there to make GNU/Linux. All that developers need to do is set up good defaults. This is simply a configuration issue; it is not something which is going to prevent you from devoting enough time to core technical issues.
The simple answer is the colder the better. Make it as low as you can tolerate.
One thing to do to make it very cold but comfortable for humans is to put the computer machinery (CPU's, GPU's, hard-drives, etc) in one room, and terminals in another, where the users sit.
Google is one organization. It is located in the US, and all its finances are in the US. So the question is firstly how do European countries have any sovereignty over it? and secondly what possible means could they have to force Google to obey their laws? Why should Google bother obeying these backwards laws, when it can ignore them at no cost.
No matter how offensive, mean, or cruel-spirited you may find people's ideas, they have the right to express them. Its a fundamental human right to freedom of speach. It exists whether or not government's recognize it, just as does the right to life.
If pro-nazi speaches offend you, then don't listen to them. Go somewhere else. Don't read Mein Kampf. No one's forcing you to listen: the right to speak does mean the right to necessarily be heard (though it does mean the right to have the potential to be heard).
That Germany as a nation chooses to ignore and violate the right to freedom of speach proves they haven't learned much from Hitler's era, when human rights were completely ignored. Had they, they would respect these rights. I'm speaking as someone of German descent, in this case. Its even worse in a democracy when human rights violations occur than when they occur in a dictatorship; when they occur in a democracy, that means that a majority of the people must have voted for someone who supports human rights violations.
To those who say that Google's doing the right thing by obeying the laws of Germany and France, I say that's non-sense. Unjust laws should not be obeyed. Just as in Germany during WWII, the right thing to do was ignore orders to kill Jewish people, so is the right thing to do in this case to disobey these laws which violate freedom of speach. This is not such a severe case, but the right thing to do is to violate laws which are wrong.
That said, I wonder why Google bother's to obey these laws. Google is based in the US, and to my knowledge all of their people are in the US, as is all of their finances. If Google chose not to obey these laws, how could the German & French government's possibly coerce or penalize them, since Google is beyond their sovereignty?
When I talk about the scope of patents and copyrights being outrageous.
Life should not be patentable.
Business models should not be patentable.
Its fucking bullshit.
If you don't think that politics affects you or what you do, then yes you are stupid. You can talk about whatever you want. But don't criticize well-meaning people for bringing up issues that do affect you.